Board of Corrections Meeting
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Juvenile Justice Complex
4333 Vineyard Avenue
Executive Director Thom McConnell welcomed everyone to the tremendous facility at Ventura County. Chairman Robert Presley requested that roll call be taken. Michelle Crosby, BOC Secretary, called roll and Chairman Presley declared the presence of a quorum. He then introduced Deputy Probation Officer Karen Staples, of Ventura County, for opening remarks.
Deputy Staples welcomed the Board members and guests to Ventura County. She stated that Chief Probation Officer Cal Remington would not be attending today’s meeting because he is not feeling well, but sends his regrets. In attendance today is Don Krause, Chief Deputy, in charge of institutions. She said Chief Deputy Krause would be operating the Juvenile Justice Complex when it opens next month. Also in attendance is Joan Splinter, Division Manager, who is the heart and soul of this facility. Ms. Splinter wrote the grant and worked through the construction documents, design, and the construction. Deputy Staples stated that Ms. Splinter is available to answer any questions.
Deputy Staples thanked the Board, not only for the grant, but also for the support and assistance the county received to get this project off the ground. She gave special thanks to Deputy Director Bill Crout, Field Representatives Doug Holien and Barbara Baker-Fenton. Deputy Staples stated that they were very helpful and easy to work with. This was a very large project, and it has been a joy and pleasure seeing this facility go up and working with the staff. Once again, she thanked the Board for the grant and their assistance.
Deputy Staples stated that the facility would house 420 beds, 240 juvenile hall beds in the part of the facility where today’s meeting is being held, and 180 treatment and commitment beds. It is all co-located on the same site and, hopefully, after the meeting everyone will have the opportunity to take a tour. She also invited anyone in the audience to tour the facility. Deputy Staples stated that they are very excited about the new facility. The current facility is very old and antiquated, and the department has not had the opportunity to facilitate programming like they have wanted to. Deputy Staples encouraged those in attendance to pick up a brochure. The brochure describes some of the programming available at the new facility.
Deputy Staples said they are really pleased with the fact that there are 29 classrooms, and that they are all co-located on the units. In the current facility they have students going to school in the dayrooms and in old visiting courtrooms, so it is going to be wonderful having all the classrooms in the same facility. In addition to classrooms on each unit they have what is called a high-tech classroom, where job training on computers will be available for the students. There will also be graphic arts, and clean programming for plumbing and electrical vocations. And last, there is a very nice gymnasium, which will enable them to have indoor recreation and programming.
She stated that also out front a new courthouse is being built. The county’s proposal to the BOC was to have a one-stop shop for kids. The courts would be out front - the facility – a one-stop for everything. Deputy Staples thanked the BOC once again for the tremendous working relationship the county has had with the Board and staff. She stated that after the Board meeting there would be tours available for everyone in attendance.
Chairman Presley welcomed new Board Member John L. Scott (Administration, Local Detention Facility), Chief of Custody, Los Angeles County. He asked new member Scott to raise his right hand for the swearing in. The Chairman read the Oath of Office and had the new member repeat the oath.
Chairman Presley called the meeting to order and announced that Board Member Zev Yaroslavsky was unable to attend this meeting because of another commitment. He asked if there was a motion to excuse the absence.
A motion to excuse Mr. Yaroslavsky was made by Mr. Ed Alameida and seconded by Mr. Tom Soto. The motion carried.
Chairman Presley asked for a motion to adopt the minutes as submitted.
A motion to adopt the minutes of the April 17, 2003, Board of Corrections meeting was made by Mr. Bill Nettles and seconded by Mr. Gary Mann. The motion carried.
Executive Director Thom McConnell stated that this agenda item would address the scheduling of Board meetings for calendar year 2004 for the Board of Corrections. Staff is recommending the Board consider the following dates and locations:
January 22, 2004 San Diego
April 15, 2004 Sacramento
July 15, 2004 Merced
October 21, 2004 Sacramento
As in past practice, the Board has instructed staff to propose locations where at least 50% of the Board’s meetings be distributed between Sacramento and locations throughout the state where new facilities or programs funded or administered by the Board have come on-line. Towards that end, staff has suggested that the Board meet in San Diego and Merced counties in January and July, where new juvenile facilities will be completed, and meet in Sacramento in April and October.
Mr. McConnell stated that historically the Board has always scheduled its meetings on the third Thursday of the month. In January 2004 that would mean the Board meeting would fall on January 15th, less than two weeks from the official end of the Christmas/New Year’s Holiday. That date would make it difficult for staff to adequately develop and distribute Board meeting materials and for the Board to adequately review those materials prior to the meeting. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Board consider rescheduling the meeting in January to the fourth Thursday, January 22nd, rather than the third Thursday.
A motion to approve the date change for the January 2004 meeting and locations of the Board of Corrections meetings for calendar year 2004 was made by Mr. Bill Kolender and seconded by Mr. John Scott. The motion carried.
federal and state construction grants – consent/information items (Agenda Item C)
Field Representative Doug Holien stated that this information item advises the Board of ministerial staff decisions on state and/or federally funded construction grants and lists minor project changes, including timeline changes, budget changes, and minor scope changes. It also includes information items that were carried over from the canceled July Board meeting. Mr. Holien stated that the counties had minor timeline changes principally due to unavoidable circumstances. The budget changes, included in the agenda packet as an attachment, enabled federal grant officials to redirect federal funds into U.S. Department of Justice contracts with environmental consultants to perform required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental studies in Alameda and Riverside counties.
Mr. Holien stated that this information agenda item is the third progress report to the Board on Contra Costa County’s juvenile hall construction project. At the September 19, 2002 meeting, the Board approved a nine-month timeline extension from June 2003 to March 2004. The Board required the county to complete written progress reports and to appear at subsequent Board meetings to address project progress. The most recent county report is included in the agenda packet as an attachment. The Board also required staff to conduct on-site monitorings to ensure progress of the project and to reimburse the county based upon approved performance targets.
Mr. Holien stated that staff has verified that Contra Costa County has met the performance target set by the Board for the period ending September 30, 2003.
Mr. Holien stated that Chief Probation Officer Steve Bautista and other county staff are available to answer any questions that the Board might have. He then introduced Chief Probation Officer Steve Bautista to address the Board.
Chief Probation Officer Bautista stated that the exterior of the building is starting to take on a finished product look. He said the county is very encouraged to see the end product and anxious to occupy the building. As the building project continues, the county recognizes the vast difference in the facility they now occupy and the facility they will soon occupy. Chief Probation Officer Bautista stated it is a pleasure to be in Oxnard today to see a finished product. He said it encourages them to continue to oversee and pursue their efforts in making sure the project is complete, and one that the Board of Corrections can be supportive and proud of.
Field Representative Karen Stoll stated that this agenda item is an update of activities associated with administration of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA). Ms. Stoll stated that the most important news she has today is that it survived the budget. The program funding took a 14% cut for FY 2003-2004 year and will continue to be funded at the $100 million level.
Ms. Stoll stated that she reported at the April 17, 2003 Board meeting that the 56 counties reapplying for money were to have their plans submitted to the BOC by May 1st. All 56 counties did reapply and met the May 1st deadline. The outcome report for year two of this program was due on October 15 and all counties met the deadline. BOC staff will now begin the process of evaluating the data from each county and compiling it into a report, due May 15, 2004, to the Governor and Legislature.
This program has a role for the Board of Corrections that is somewhat different from the other programs that the Board administers. The money is distributed in a block form based on population; it is not a competitive process. Counties have the responsibility to determine where the gaps in their system lie and to fund the programs that meet those gaps. It is then the BOC’s role to review each county’s plan and assure that they have met the intent of the law. The law also requires the BOC to evaluate the programs against six legislatively mandated outcomes. Ms. Stoll said the system has also been designed so that counties can have locally determined outcomes that they report on, because not all programs fit into the six legislatively mandated programs.
After the BOC receives the outcome evaluation reports from the counties on all 194 programs, BOC staff will draft the Legislative report. Ms. Stoll stated that the previous year’s report is now available on the BOC website.
mentally ill offender crime reduction grant report from ventura county (Agenda Item F)
Field Representative Darryl Datwyler stated that the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant (MIOCRG) report on the agenda today is a briefing by Ventura County on their project. He stated that Commander Mark Ball, from the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, would provide the Board with a presentation of their multiagency referral and treatment program. He introduced Commander Mark Ball.
Commander Ball thanked the Board for the opportunity to present information on Ventura County’s MIOCRG grant. He stated that he couldn’t say that they have actually saved any money; he can’t say that they have emptied their jails of mentally ill offenders, nor can he say that they will not have any repeat offenders. What he can say is that the Ventura County MIOCRG Program has made a significant difference for the mentally ill. Commander Ball stated that for the first time in his 25 years of law enforcement; the Behavioral Health Department, District Attorneys Office, Public Defender’s Office, Probation Department, and the Sheriff’s Department are talking and working together towards a common goal.
Commander Ball stated that they are making a difference in the personal lives of the mentally ill individuals whom they simply used to warehouse in their jail. Commander Ball stated he is extremely proud of their program and, on behalf of Sheriff Bob Brooks, thanked the BOC for the opportunities it has given them with this grant. Commander Ball introduced Barbara DeGrande, Supervisor, Forensic Services, for the Ventura County Behavioral Health Department.
Ms. DeGrande stated that it is a privilege to be part of the MIOCRG Program, and she appreciates being able to share her enthusiasm with the Board. She said that working in a multiagency system is very different. It has been an intense, rewarding, challenging, never dull, and difficult experience, all at the same time. She stated it is great to be a part of something that is living, breathing, and evolving that is making a positive difference in peoples’ lives. Ms. DeGrande stated that she didn’t know if they were looking as good, as Commander Ball said, on a numerical basis, but what they see, humanly speaking, at ground level in the treatment program is very heartwarming.
Ms. DeGrande stated that she wanted to share a few things they have learned up to this point. She stated that working in a multiagency system is rewarding, but can be very uncomfortable at times. It has challenged everyone to grow and expand their thinking, come together and fall apart, and come together again. She said they have learned that sometimes they want things for their clients that clients do not want for themselves, and from a treatment perspective what that means is we don’t assume that they want our lifestyle. Staff is learning more, with time, to help clients facilitate goals that will keep them out of the criminal justice system, and gradually move them in a more positive direction. Ms. DeGrande stated that for some clients, who have been out on the streets for 15 or 20 years, adjusting to a housing situation is a bit difficult at first. It has been a several step process to get them to even be indoors, so this program has necessitated a learning curve for the county.
Ms. DeGrande stated they have learned that just because someone, or something, requires a lot of patience doesn’t mean it is not worth the task. Little payoffs for the client population can have a tremendous impact in peoples’ lives. They have found that not only the inmate, but also the entire family, at times, receives the payoff for services that they have rendered through the program. She stated they have learned that sometimes all the support therapy, housing, shelter, and programs in the world cannot illicit change, and that sometimes it takes very little to illicit change.
Ms. DeGrande stated, above all, she has have learned that people will surprise you. They have had clients come through the program that seem to have many internal resources and they appear to be motivated. We believe we are really going to help these individuals turn things around, and in six months staff are asking, “what happened?” She stated they have had other clients come in very, very ill and, in fact, could not even talk when they entered the program. These same clients stood up at graduation and actually walked to the front of the group and shared.
Ms. DeGrande stated that there have been other surprises in the program that she would like to share with the Board today. She said being a part of this collaboration, as Commander Ball mentioned, has been one of the most rewarding parts of the program. The participants are a very diverse group of people that come with different missions. Ms. DeGrande stated that she has learned what the specific role of each participating agency is in the criminal justice system. Ms. DeGrande stated that she would not have believed, when she first started, that they would have the district attorney and the public defender putting money on the table to help with supplies for inmates coming out of the jail system and that their strongest treatment allies would be the Sheriff’s Department. She said the relationship with the Sheriff’s Department has been a wonderful and rewarding experience.
Ms. DeGrande stated that a pleasant surprise has been finding out how much the program means to people. The researchers are discovering in follow-up that some of the clients who struggled while in the program have spoken fondly of it. The program began expanding its services to include vocational rehab and socialization activities. Their first mandated group outing was a picnic at Arroyo Verde Park. The clients just sat with their hands kind of wrapped around themselves until they were given a lesson in Frisbee. The change in them six months later is dramatic. They are now calling if they are not picked up for group, friendships are being formed (this helps with isolation), and some clients in the program help coordinate activities.
Ms. DeGrande stated that an interesting surprise they found is that a person is never too old to change. One of their first successful clients was in his ninetieth decade. He is now in stable housing, has improved his family relationships, and is quite a character. She said he continues to do well after the program. Some of the early research shows, in fact, the older clients might be more receptive to changing than some of the younger clients. The 18, 19, and 20 year olds that are coming in are often not ready to give up their drug of choice, and they are often not ready to come indoors and cooperate, although they have had some 18 year olds who have done quite well.
Ms. DeGrande stated they have found that an unbroken cane can sometimes become a symbol of success. They had a client, when he first entered the program, looked like he had the weight of the world on his shoulders. He was quite stooped with a very serious frown, angry and frustrated, and at his graduation he stood up in front of the group held up a cane, and said he has had this cane for six months. He said he never kept a cane for more than a few weeks, because he would break it on things in the past. Ms. DeGrande stated that is was a nice metaphor for change, it wasn’t maybe how you and I would consider significant change, but he was healed. He had his cane and he didn’t have to replace it every month.
Ms. DeGrande stated that true change does take time and for some of their clients who have been in this lifestyle for 20, 30, 40 and, even like the gentleman mentioned earlier, 60 something years. She said the 12-month program probably isn’t going to effectively change things for the long-term, although for some of the clients who may need a little more time are so much open to change when they leave than when they first came in. The intensive services really seem to be working.
And lastly, one of the surprises has been that so many of their clients die. It is a shock for staff to find out how many of their clients are very ill after so many years of self-abuse. She said two weeks ago they had one of their client’s die of a heart attack very young, not even mid-life. He was a successful graduate and to their surprise the family called them, even though he had been out of the program for several months, to thank them for all that the program had done for him before he passed away. Ms. DeGrande stated that the clients who have died while in the program, not that there have been numerous, have died indoors rather than outdoor, have died with family members rather than isolated, and have died with some human dignity. She stated that she thinks the healing in the family and the sense of connection has helped and will help generations to follow.
Ms. DeGrande stated that she has found in this project that success sometimes comes in very odd shapes. It is success, nonetheless, and the clients and their families are definitely benefiting from the treatment they have received so far. She said their current mission is to develop a unified program integrating what they have learned from MIOCRG, expand the target population, find those clients they can most effectively treat, and become more efficient in the delivery of those services. She said they want to maintain their collaboration with the different agencies to ensure that this population does not fall between the cracks. Now that there is staff in each agency aware of these issues, they are funneling questionable clients to them. She said they would hate to lose that. Ms. DeGrande stated this is going to be a big payoff for Ventura County over the years.
Ms. DeGrande stated she is very grateful to have had the opportunity to work on developing a system of treatment that will assist their communities in reducing the recidivism among the mentally ill offender population. She stated they have found that they are a gatekeeper also. The clients they receive have not had any treatment, have never been on medication, have not received any benefits, nor are they on Medi-Cal. One of the successes of the program is getting these clients to get help and break the cycle that they have been in. She stated she believes that their project has been successful, but the real success of this grant and project will be in the program to follow; when they can create from what they have learned from MIOCRG, a solid dual-diagnosis forensic program that will help this county for many years to come. Ms. DeGrande thanked the Board for their time.
Chairman Presley asked if they have had the opportunity to help with the transitioning of clients back to the community after they leave the facility. “Has that come up yet? How successful has that been?” Ms. DeGrande responded that they have a couple of housing contracts, and they have clients that have been able to get on Social Security, Supplemental Income that stay in one the housing complexes or get in similar housing before they leave the program. Four clients have been hooked up with vocational rehab and are looking for work. Several clients have started working while in the program and are doing volunteer work for the first time.
Chairman Presley said it sounds wonderful and what a great service the program is providing. He asked whether they have been able to track any recidivism, and whether any of the clients that have gone through the program have come back? Ms. DeGrande responded that yes they have. They have one client, in lieu of jail time, went into a residential rehab for three months and then went back in the program. Their client left sober when he exited the program. She stated this is how collaboration between agencies works – coming up with an effective, creative solution for the client.
Mr. McConnell thanked Ms. DeGrande for her presentation. He said so often these days government is often seen as an scape goat for all things wrong, and when you can come back to the Board with this type of success story, which is obviously driven by compassion, affection, and discipline, it gives the people in this room and around the table a greater desire to do better things. Mr. McConnell commented to Ms. DeGrande that the obvious accomplishments you have made with this program should not only be noted in our record, but should also be seen as a point of pride between what we can do for you and what you can do for the community we all serve. Once again, thank you for the wonderful presentation.
Chairman Presley stated that prior to these grants being reduced, there had been some discussion to expand the mentally ill offender grants out to all 58 counties in the state. This would have enabled us to take the successes that we heard today and make this a statewide program. He stated when you see this type of collaboration it is a win-win for our communities, and once the funding is available, we need to pursue it statewide.
Chairman Presley asked when the Board will see the first evaluation? Ms. DeGrande responded that they have some preliminary data right now. One of the problems they have encountered is the tracking system. The control group, for research purposes, does not receive the same kind of scrutiny as the treatment group. She stated that she did not know if there would be a huge difference in jail days, it is too early to tell. The final evaluation will be completed in June 2004. Ms. DeGrande stated she would check with the researcher regarding what the data shows up to this point.
Mr. Holien stated that this agenda item provides the Board with Alameda County’s request to change the construction start date from January 25, 2003 to April 1, 2004 and the construction end date from September 29, 2005 to September 29, 2006, for building its new replacement juvenile hall. The timeline change request is due to additional time that was needed to complete both state required environmental studies under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and also time needed to complete federally required environmental studies under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These processes required public comment, county response, identification and analysis of alternate sites, and led to final environmental reports and site selection. The CEQA and NEPA processes are now complete.
He stated that the County Board of Supervisors has made necessary findings under CEQA and has selected the San Leandro site on county-owned land adjacent to the existing juvenile hall that will be demolished. The county letter to the Board was included in the agenda packet as Attachment A. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice has also made necessary findings under NEPA and has concurred in the San Leandro site selection. This is indicated in their Record of Decision, which was contained in Attachment B in the agenda packet.
Mr. Holien stated that the Board’s grant for 330 beds was initially planned by the County to be part of a larger 540-bed replacement facility paid for with supplemental County funds. As indicated in the agenda packet, the Board of Supervisors has since reduced the initial size of the replacement facility from 540 beds to 360 beds, based on revised population projections and public comments received during the CEQA and NEPA process. A total of 330 beds will be funded by the Board of Corrections construction grant, as per the initial grant award, with the remainder built at County expense. The County is now actively engaged in design work and has submitted architectural drawings to staff and the State Fire Marshal for review as required by law. The County has also submitted an Operational Program Statement and staffing plan as required by Board regulations.
Mr. Holien stated that Alameda County’s new Chief Probation Officer, Don Blevins, would like to make a few comments, and in attendance with Chief Blevins today are Aki Nakao, Director, General Services Agency, James Kachik, Project Director, General Services, and Donna Linton, Assistant County Administrator Officer.
Chief Blevins stated he is pleased to be here today and that this is his first time to attend a Board of Corrections meeting since taking the position of Chief Probation Officer. He stated that his timing must be impeccable because he missed the last two years of turmoil in Alameda County. He said he walked in and was immediately briefed on the project, and he finds it to be an exciting example of where the County is headed. He stated that he immediately toured the current facility and sees the tremendous need for a new juvenile hall. Buildings are currently being demolished on the site in preparation for this project. Chief Blevins stated that he meets with the project managers every week and sees no reason why this project will not move forward, and he is hoping it will be completed ahead of schedule.
Board Member Soto asked whether more time could be built into the forecast for environmental reviews (NEPA/CEQQA). He stated, unless his memory serves him wrong, the counties tend to go through this often. Executive Director Thom stated that he would share some brief history on this process. He said California started this process before the federal government required NEPA. The counties were going to need CEQA and had planned on that, but the federal government made a retroactive decision, after many of the counties were far into their projects, that they would have to meet NEPA requirements. These extensions that we are all seeing and living with now have a great deal to do with the fact that many of the counties had already gone through and met CEQA requirements, were far into their projects, and then had to back up and take time to meet NEPA requirements.
Mr. McConnell stated they now have more experience with the NEPA process, and it will certainly be included in the planning of new facilities that come forward. The answer to your question is yes. No one realized the kind of impact those requirements would have, and certainly we need to give the counties an opportunity to plan for that.
Mr. McConnell stated that in Alameda’s case that was not the only reason they were having difficulty getting on line, but they are now and staff strongly recommend that the Board consider a motion to approve this project.
A motion to approve the extension of the construction start date from January 25, 2003 to April 1, 2004, and the construction end date from September 29, 2005, to September 29, 2006, was made by Mr. Gary Mann and seconded by Mr. Tom Soto. The motion carried.
Deputy Director Jim Sida stated that this agenda item includes a report and recommendations (included in the agenda packet as Attachment A) made by the Executive Steering Committee, who were authorized by the Board, to review the impact of budget eliminations on the Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) Program and make recommendations pertinent to strategies, program regulations, or policy and procedures.
On January 10, 2003, Governor Davis proposed to transfer $10.2 million from the Corrections Training Fund (CTF) to the General Fund and eliminate $6 million in supplemental funds for a total of $16.2 million in subvention funding for this valuable program. Faced with the potential of elimination, staff requested approval by the BOC to assemble an Executive Steering Committee (ESC) to study those impacts and make recommendations to the Board today.
Because of the extremely short time horizon for implementation of changes to the STC Program operations that would be required by the elimination of local assistance funding, the BOC adopted a staff proposal to commence a program review of the STC process immediately upon the appointment of BOC members to chair and co-chair the ESC. The Board appointed Board members Curtis Hill and Terry Lee to serve as chair and co-chair. In addition to the ESC chairs, Board members Gary Mann and Bill Nettles requested to serve as members of the ESC. All Board members were advised of the appointment of ESC members and timelines on June 2, 2003, via mail.
On June 25, 2003, the ESC convened to consider the impact of budget reductions on the STC Program. This process yielded a decision by the ESC to convene three separate workgroups who were tasked with developing information, guidelines, and/or recommendations in assigned areas and to have those workgroups report back to the ESC on September 17, 2003.
Between June 25 and August 29, 2003, three workgroups were assembled consisting of 29 individuals, from sheriff, probation and police departments representing large, medium, and small agencies to examine and make recommendations concerning issues identified by the ESC. The workgroups were charged with the following three projects:
Workgroup #1: Examine how STC policies and procedures could be modified to assist local agencies in meeting the standards in an era of no local assistance funding.
Workgroup #2: Develop recommended mechanisms for cataloging and sharing training related resources.
Workgroup #3: Establish recommendations to track the quantifiable impacts of loss of State funding. This workgroup was charged with the responsibility of defining what data elements could measure both short and long term impacts of no State funding.
Mr. Sida stated that on September 17, 2003, a final ESC meeting was conducted to receive the recommendations from the selected members of each workgroup supported by staff. At the conclusion of the meeting, the ESC made comment on and directed staff to present their recommendations to the Board at the October 16, 2003 meeting. Based on those recommendations staff is requesting the following:
1) The Board adopt the recommendations of the ESC.
2) Direct staff to develop recommendations for regulation and policy changes necessary to enact the recommendations of the ESC.
3) Authorize staff to assemble additional workgroups to develop ways and means of establishing short, medium, and long-term strategies to aid agencies in the selection and training of local corrections personnel.
4) Direct staff to report regularly to the BOC on the progress of activities related to the recommendations adopted by the Board.
Board Member Mann thanked the committees for the tremendous job they did. He stated that he has provided STC training for over six years and feels that he is somewhat of an expert in this area. He stated that it is very important that alternative ways be developed to provide this training at a time when there is no funding. Board Member Mann questioned the recommendation to lift the IFT and WRE hours cap. He said IFT is an intensive format training that gives agencies the ability to capture a half hour and up to two hours of training toward their numbers for STC. There are a number of classes, however like CPR, First Aid, and special weapons classes that require a good four to eight hours of training. He stated that the IFT is a good program and believes it was implemented around 1990, but if they lift the cap and allow the full twenty-four hours to become an IFT, he is concerned that some of the important classes that need four to eight hours to adequately cover course material would be missed. He stated that maybe next year it would be a good thing to have, but he asked the Board if staff could possibly monitor this.
Board Member Mann stated that he would like to make the following recommendations: see the cap lifted on the IFT, capture the evaluation, and see if quality training is being provided as the Board assumes is happening. Also, for next year, if the money is available, we address these issues and maybe change them as needed.
Mr. Sida stated that part of our mission to provide high quality cost-effective training includes the evaluation of courses. To the extent in which we evaluate the IFTs, he whole-heartedly agreed. The BOC is committed to doing that and would provide for the Board on an ongoing basis our evaluations of those courses to make sure that they meet the quality requirement and keep in line with the overall mission of improving the competency of corrections personnel in California.
Mr. Sida suggested to Board Member Mann staff recommendations be amended to include a focus study specifically on the IFT, which is to be added to the section about individual studies, and present it to the Board in January 2005. He asked Board Member Mann if this would cover his concerns? Board Member Mann stated yes, and said he would like to include the WRE because it is recommended that that cap also be lifted. Mr. Sida stated that staff would then amend its recommendations to include a focus study of the IFT and WRE with a report back to the Board in January 2005.
A motion to approve 1) staff’s recommendations to adopt the recommendations of the ESC; 2) direct staff to develop recommendations for regulation and policy changes necessary to enact the recommendations of the ESC; 3) authorize staff to assemble additional workgroups to develop ways and means of establishing short, medium, and long-term strategies to aid agencies in the selection and training of local corrections personnel; 4) direct staff to report regularly to the BOC on the progress of activities related to the recommendations adopted by the Board; and 5) direct staff to conduct a focused evaluation on the IFT and WRE by January 2005 was made by Mr. Gary Mann and seconded by Mr. Bill Kolender. The motion carried.
Ms. Stoll stated that this item reports on the Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grant II project activities since the last update provided to the Board of Corrections at its January 16, 2003 meeting. Both Challenge I and Challenge II were demonstration grants that were funded by the Legislature to acquire data on a variety of programs that range from prevention to incapacitation to find out what programs work with juvenile offenders. The Challenge I program concluded a couple of years ago and the report was submitted to the Board at that time. She stated that before they had the results for Challenge I, Challenge II was funded at the level of $56 million for a three-year grant. That was then augmented by an additional $14 million bringing the total amount to $70 million and extending the program out for four years. Unfortunately, in the 2002 Budget Act the program was cut by $12.3 million, which essentially cut the fourth year of operation from many programs.
Ms. Stoll stated that some programs, because of salary savings and delays in implementation, were able to take their three-year allocation and stretch it out over a four-year period. Approximately five counties were able to do that. Nine of the seventeen counties that were funded from this program were not able to do that and they concluded most of their activities in January or February of 2003. Three counties elected to terminate their programs in Fall 2003. She stated that they are currently in the closeout process of all of these grants. Approximately ten of the seventeen counties are continuing the programs or continuing a component of the programs. Most of them are using a portion of their JJCPA money to pick up the funding of those programs, while others are using general funds, and some are using a combination of JJCPA, general funds, and Medi-Cal funding to continue their programs.
Ms. Stoll stated they are optimistic about receiving very good evaluation results to present to the Board at the January 2004 meeting. The deadline for receiving the evaluation reports was the end of September, and they are now in the process of examining the data. BOC staff has found some problems with the data and they need to contact the evaluators in the counties to receive clarification. Staff is currently working on the closeout issues, the final of which is the audit of the programs, which is due at the end of October. To date, based on the expenditure reports that the counties have submitted there is approximately $611,081 that was returned through invoices. She stated that San Francisco has completed their audit and returned an additional amount of money. Five counties returned money, Contra Costa $1, El Dorado $2, Tehama $58,800, Solano $58,900 and San Francisco $502,000.
The final report, as mentioned, will be presented to the Board at the January 2004 meeting and is due to the Legislature on March 1, 2004.
Dr. John Kohls stated that he would be giving a report on the local California Juvenile Detention System. The Juvenile Detention Profile Survey (JDPS) has been used to collect data from local juvenile detention facilities since 1999. Data are collected from 54 county detention systems in California. This is the fourth annual report for the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey (2002) and the major trends since 1999. Dr. Kohls stated that he would be discussing the following items: 1) jail population and system capacity; 2) jail population characteristics; 3) mental health issues; and 4) summary and conclusion.
Dr. Kohls stated he refers to the California Attorney General’s report “Crime in California 2002” for his background information. He said the reported crime rate ended its decreasing trend in 2001. The crime index went up 4% in 2002, the per capita increase was 2.4%, and so the increase is not just due to an increase in the general population in California. Nevertheless, juvenile arrests continued its long-term decline of 4.5% from 2001 to 2002. The rate of arrests in the juvenile at-risk population declined 8.6%. In other words, the general population for juveniles in the at-risk category is going up and the rate of offending is going down at a greater rate compensating for any kind of increase in juvenile population. Therefore, while the general crime rate in California is again on the rise, this change is not reflected in the juvenile population.
Dr. Kohls stated that he believes the reason for this decline is the extensive juvenile programming that was sponsored by the Legislature and the Board, example being the Challenge projects. Nationwide juvenile arrests decreased in the same period 4.1%. Without the significant California results the nationwide results would have shown a much smaller decrease. In other words there is a major chunk of California’s results in the national figures, and so depending on which database you look at California seems to have a disproportionate affect on the decrease in juvenile offending nationwide. He stated that they’d like to attribute that to the programming that we have available.
Dr. Kohls stated that the population being discussed today regards juveniles detained by probation departments including juveniles detained in halls, camps, home detention, and in any other detention setting such as work programs, day schools, and special purpose juvenile halls. The average daily population (ADP) of all detained juveniles in California in 2002 was 13,659 in the following categories: juvenile halls –6,580 juveniles, which is about half of the detained juvenile population, 4,548 camps, one-third of detained juveniles, and the remaining 18.5% consists of 8.8% home detention with electronic monitoring, 7% home detention without electronic monitoring, and finally an additional 2.7% were assigned to some alternative confinement.
Dr. Kohls stated that there are trends toward a decrease in the ADP due to the long-term decline in juvenile offending. Extensive programming exists which includes the Challenge I and II programs, the Repeat Offender Prevention Program (ROPP), and the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act Program (JJCPA). He said with just the Challenge programs alone, the counties affected account for 80% of the California general population. By adding ROPP and JJCPA, virtually every county in the state has initiated significant programming to reduce the incidents of juvenile offending. Dr. Kohls stated that the next trend toward using alternatives to detention and confinement such as “cite and release” have been put into place and, finally, the poor economy and related budget constraints restrict the resources available for operating detention facilities. He stated that the opening of some new facilities might be delayed as well. These all serve to reduce the ADP.
Dr. Kohls stated the following are possible reasons for the predicted future increases in ADP. First, both juvenile hall and camp capacity will increase over the next five years correcting some of the crowding problems that now exist. Second, the recent reversal in trend toward an increasing adult crime rate might foretell a similar trend for juveniles. Budget problems will result in the reduction or elimination, perhaps, of many prevention programs that have been very successful. The juvenile at-risk populations are expected to increase more rapidly than the general population in California. Traditionally, a poor economy is associated with an increase in crime rates. He stated there is a number of factors that suggest the ADP will continue to go down, however there are also a number of factors that suggest the ADP will go up.
Dr. Kohls stated that he would next discuss the ADP, board-rated capacity, and peak demands for juvenile detention space, bookings, and jurisdiction. First, juvenile hall ADP declined by about 200 juveniles between 1999 and 2002. This decrease is characteristic of the entire state, with the exception of small rural northern counties, which accounts for a small percentage of the total state ADP. The increase in these smaller counties was due mainly from recent building programs that addressed serious needs for increased bed space for juveniles. He stated that one of the issues they addressed this year is whether some of the larger counties are driving the statewide results. Staff gathered representatives from local jurisdictions to collect the data. Basically, what they found is that no large agency has a disproportionate affect on the results that he would be presenting today. He stated that the trends he has been reporting and would be reporting on today are general statewide trends.
The ADP for camps is virtually the same as it was in 1999. Camp populations are determined by capacity in terms of the number of beds. Juveniles are assigned to camps based upon the availability of space and since camp capacity puts a ceiling on ADP, increases in camp ADP will be contingent upon new camp construction. All other detention figures, excluding juvenile halls and camps, went from 2,417 to 2,531, and the overall results from 1999 to 2002 is a “whopping decrease” in total population of .07%. With respect to camps, we are in a holding pattern-nothing much is changing. He stated that building programs initiated in the late 1990s have resulted in increased juvenile hall and camp capacity. Juvenile hall capacity increased by over 1,000 beds and camp capacity increased by over 400 beds. Over the next five years, juvenile hall and camp capacity will increase an additional 20% to approximately 15,000 beds statewide.
He stated that it will be interesting to see what happens during the next five years with the capacity versus the need for space issue. Looking further into the issue of juvenile hall capacity versus need, the 2002 juvenile hall ADP was 6,580. This ADP, being an average, is a good statistic for measuring trends, but not for assessing the need for space. The number of juvenile hall beds that meet the Board-rated capacity (BRC), beds that meet the standards of the Board of Corrections, is currently 7,126. The BRC exceeded the 6,580 juveniles by a comparable margin during 2002. However, on a typical high day (peak population days), the population for the four quarters in 2002 was 7,274. On peak days the juvenile hall system had about 150 beds fewer than necessary.
Dr. Kohls stated that in the second quarter, when the average juvenile hall population is at its highest, the peak day exceeded the BRC by 325 beds. Nevertheless, as of 2002, crowding is not a critical issue. On peak days the system capacity is fairly close to matching the need. We currently have an adequate system. He said that despite the peak factor in terms of juvenile hall capacity, we are in good shape right now. He stated that it’s not that we don’t have crowding problems; we do, and would be discussing it shortly. One finding by the Juvenile Detention Survey, as it relates to crowding, is the pattern of ADP during the calendar year by gathering juvenile detention data quarterly rather than on a yearly basis. They can identify reliable trends that occur within a calendar year. For example, we now know that the second quarter is always going to be the highest quarter. If we are looking for how big and what kind of capacity is needed, we should look at the second quarter. For jails it is the third quarter, which is a different pattern. Dr. Kohls said we need to be specific about the pattern.
Dr. Kohls stated that while the ADP decreased by 3%, as might be expected, the bookings between 1999 and 2002 decreased a similar percentage, 3.7%. He said considering all the facts the absolute number of juvenile offenses, juvenile bookings, and juvenile ADP will all soon begin to rise again. This was the pattern with adults, and he believes it will be the same with juveniles with a slightly delayed response from what happened in the adult system. He said jurisdictions experiencing juvenile hall crowding for 15 or more days per month in at least one facility in 2002 occurred in 14 counties, including Ventura County, and those counties are where 57% of the state’s general population resides. Dr. Kohls stated that we are doing well in regard to system capacity, but there are still individual counties in California where there is crowding in a facility.
Dr. Kohls stated that 25% of the bookings into juvenile halls was comprised of Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) 777 which includes weapons and WIC 601. In terms of detained juveniles, females constitute 15% and males constitute 85% in juvenile halls. He stated that this percentage of females has been rising steadily, and is a statewide and nationwide phenomenon. According to the local panel, one reason for this trend is the change in the attitude of judges to treat female offenders more harshly than they have in the past and more similar to the juvenile male counterparts. The same phenomenon is occurring in camps, but at a slower rate.
According to the 2002 data, 64% of the juvenile hall population and 67% of the camp population were charged with a felony offense. The percentage of pre-disposition inmates has been rising at a steady rate from 49% in 1999 to 53% in 2002. This mirrors what is occurring in the adult institutions. As this percentage increases, there will obviously be less space available for post-disposition inmates, and less flexibility dealing with them.
In 2002, the average number of open mental health cases per month was 3,638 for juvenile halls and camps combined, which represents 33% of the detained ADP. The monthly average number of juveniles who were receiving psychotropic medication in 2002 was 1,294, which represents 12% of the detained ADP, and Dr. Kohls believes those numbers will rise. Dr. Kohls stated there was an average of 184 suicide attempts per quarter in juvenile halls in 2002. This number is significantly lower than in 1999, however the reduction is proportional to the reduction in the ADPs. He said one minor in every thousand in juvenile halls will make a serious suicide attempt.
Dr. Kohls stated in conclusion, juvenile offending and arrests continue to decline. The Board-rated capacity is at its highest level ever for both juvenile halls and camps. Although there is some crowding, it is currently not a significant statewide problem. Significant programs of proven efficacy have been in effect for over the past several years and continue with JJCPA. He stated we are in an ideal situation. On the other hand, the at-risk population of juveniles will be increasing at a much faster rate than the general population for at least the remainder of the decade. The adult crime index was up for 2002 possibly foretelling an increase in juvenile offending. The money for programs that reduce juvenile offending has been dwindling.
Dr. Kohls predicts arrests, bookings, and ADP will begin to rise again in the near future, and time will tell whether the increased capacity will be sufficient to meet the growing demands for detention resources. He stated that concludes his presentation and would be happy to answer any questions.
Board Member Mann asked for Dr. Kohls’ opinion on the alternatives to camps, juvenile halls, and home monitoring. He asked whether lowering the criteria to try and keep the population in juvenile halls and camps down has been effective over the last four years. Dr. Kohls responded he believes that is what is occurring. He said they have no research to know whether putting a juvenile in home detention rather than juvenile hall is a good choice or not, in terms of what happens to the juvenile afterward.
Board Member Kolender stated that it seems that home detention exists because of the more active participation with the juvenile court judges in mediation with these juveniles and their families. And, being the parent(s) or who is responsible for the juvenile in this process, he believes it is a significant reason why many juveniles are not incarcerated. Dr. Kohls stated that he understands there have been other changes. The interesting thing would be to see what happens when there is increased capacity and to what extent. If there were availability of beds, would that change decisions about where juveniles would go. He said the proof of Mr. Kolender’s hypothesis of the capacity being available, but it is not being utilized because they are using alternatives will be if those beds are underutilized.
Chairman Presley asked if there was any particular reason for the attempted suicides while in custody. Dr. Kohls stated that unfortunately, in this case, he is just the counter of the numbers and does not know any of the dynamics.
Deputy Director Bill Crout stated that this agenda item relates to the recommendations of the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) on the development of regulations to implement SB 1242. This report provides the BOC with the recommended regulation developed by the 11-member ESC. The ESC is requesting the Board’s approval of the regulation developed by the ESC for inclusion in the Adult Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities, one public hearing, a proposed public hearing date, and appoint a panel chair.
SB 1242 was signed by the Governor last year which allowed for the forcible taking of blood specimens, saliva samples, thumb and palm print impressions from inmates who, after written or oral request refuse to provide such samples. The Board of Corrections is mandated under Penal Code Section 298.1 to develop regulations for the use of force in securing these samples for inmates in local detention facilities. The BOC is also required to report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2005 on the implementation of the reasonable use of force pursuant to this act.
Mr. Crout stated that at the April 17, 2003 meeting, the Board directed staff to begin the regulation development process and Acting Chair Edward Alameida appointed Board Member Curtis Hill, chair, and Board Member Donald Sheetz, co-chair for the ESC. The Board empowered the chair to develop a list of individuals who would serve on the ESC subject to the approval of the rest of the Board. An 11-member committee was formed and met on June 12, 2003, and developed a framework for a regulation, guidelines and the reporting process. He stated that there was a major consensus from the committee that a second meeting was not necessary due to fiscal concerns. The material was provided to all the ESC members and finalized and was provided as attachments to the agenda packet.
A motion to approve staff’s recommendations to: 1) adopt the regulation for inclusion in the Adult Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities, Title 15, California Code of Regulations, Section 1059; 2) direct staff to commence the public comment period; and 3) adopt the proposed public hearing date and appoint a panel chair was made by Mr. Edward Alameida and seconded by Mr. Bill Nettles. The motion carried.
Chairman Presley requested discussion regarding the court decision affecting this legislation. Mr. Crout stated that during a briefing the day before, the BOC also came across a court decision that has occurred in the 9th District Court that has found this particular part of legislation to be unconstitutional for federal prisoners. The discussion regarding this court decision was whether this impacted state and local prisoners. In California, the Attorney General, at this point, has rendered the opinion that it does not and with that information, both the Youth Authority and Department of Corrections will continue to collect samples and process and develop this regulation. Counties will need to discuss with their county counsels whether or not they determine if it’s inappropriate to implement. At this point, we will continue to work with the Attorney General. He said it is the feeling of the administration that this will quickly go to the Supreme Court and will probably be settled before the Office of Administrative Law adopts these regulations. However, the BOC will keep the counties informed of those proceedings as they move forward. Mr. Crout stated that one of the issues discussed was what liability a department and or a county would find themselves under if, in fact, this were found to be unconstitutional. The general consensus was there would be very limited liability because of the fact that it is a state law.
Mr. Crout said state and county agencies need to be aware that there has been a challenge. There is also a very strong consensus from the Attorney General that it will not be appealed. Mr. Crout stated they would keep everyone informed as best they can to the progress of that decision.
Deputy Director Jim Sida stated that the 2003-2004 Budget Act assumes the abolition of the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) effective on January 1, 2004, and therefore contains half-year funding for the office and its programs. The Budget Act further specifies the proposed disposition of OCJP’s functions: 1) juvenile justice functions shall be transferred to the Board of Corrections or other appropriate agency; 2) law enforcement programs shall be transferred to the Office of Emergency Services or other appropriate agency; and 3) victims services shall be transferred to the Victims’ Compensation and Government Claims Board or another appropriate agency.
Mr. Sida stated that they have had some concerns regarding the process. One of the concerns is that there might be a recommendation to take the existing staff and resource, divide them up, and place them within different agencies. The BOC is a flat organization with very good people who are able to make a broad range of decisions and move products through quickly and efficiently. We don’t have a large infrastructure by which to take on some of the activities of a preexisting organization, BOC staff has expressed those concerns to the Department of Finance. The BOC staff concur that they should receive the juvenile justice programs and that it would be a good opportunity to fold them into the JJCPA platform. BOC staff feels this programmatic approach would be efficient for the Board and for the counties that receive these grants.
Mr. Sida stated that they did meet yesterday with a representative from the Department of Finance, and they are currently negotiating ways and means by which they might be able to bring these programs to the Board, while at the same time, maintaining the BOC’s current infrastructure which has been developed over time. In the event that this programmatic approach is not doable, then BOC would probably have serious reservations about whether or not it is the appropriate agency to receive this function. Negotiations will continue for the weeks and months to come.
Mr. Sida stated that he wanted to assure the Board that as they go through the negotiation process, staff would keep them informed. Once a decision is made, staff will present a proposal to the Board regarding implementation of the responsibilities as they relate to the BOC. Hopefully, if there is a proposal, it will be available for presentation at the January 2004 Board meeting.
Deputy Director Bill Crout stated that at the April 17, 2003 meeting, after approximately 18 months of working very diligently on the new proposed revisions to Juvenile Titles 15 and 24, Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Facilities, staff requested that the Board approve those for final adoption and they did so. The changes to the Juvenile Title 15, CCR were submitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), in accordance with the California Rulemaking Law under the Administrative Procedure Act. Approval was granted by OAL, and the regulations were submitted and endorsed by the Secretary of State, allowing the regulations to become effective on July 23, 2003.
He stated concurrent to the submittal of regulations to the OAL, Title 24 regulations were under review by the Building Standards Commission (BSC). Title 24, Part 1, CCR was approved and became effective August 17, 2003. Part 1 includes such items as the definition of a pilot project for Alternate Means of Compliance. Part 2, which includes the definition of what a facility should look like once it is constructed i.e. what type of glazing should be used, how big the holding rooms should be, or how big the dayroom needs to be. Those items become effective 180 days after they are published by the Building Standards Commission. Mr. Crout stated that everything is in place and all they are waiting for is the standards to be published by the BSC.
The BSC has advised staff that they are holding back on publishing pending a number of other state agencies submitting their proposed changes to the BSC. The BSC wishes to publish all revisions from the various state agencies at the same time. Consequently, this has delayed the publication of BOC’s Title 24 revisions.
Mr. Crout stated that this agenda item is requesting a blanket Alternate Means of Compliance so that those agencies that choose to use any of the new standards, which are pending, may do so under this blanket. This type of request is traditional for the Board of Corrections and has occurred a number of times in the past 15 years. Generally speaking, agencies that are involved in beginning the planning process for new facilities do use the newest standards possible. Staff is recommending that the Board of Corrections grant a blanket Alternate Means of Compliance, under Title 24, Section 13-201(c) 8, CCR, that will allow agencies, at their option, to utilize the newly revised Title 24, CCR, Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Facilities in advance of their effective date.
A motion to approve staff’s recommendations to grant a blanket Alternate Means of Compliance, under Title 24, Section 13-201(c) 8, CCR, that will allow agencies, at their option, to utilize the newly revised Title 24, CCR, Minimum Standards for Local Juvenile Facilities in advance of their effective date was made by Mr. Curtis Hill and seconded by Mr. Bill Kolender. The motion carried.
Mr. Bill Crout stated that this agenda item constitutes the six-month status report on the pilot project for the co-located juvenile/adult detention facility in Fresno County. The Fresno County Probation Department has for a number of years been struggling with overcrowding conditions in their juvenile hall. The Board of Corrections (BOC) has worked very diligently with the staff from the Fresno County Probation Department to develop ways of mitigating the crowding at this particular facility, and the probation department has been very diligent in providing a Suitability Plan describing what they are doing to mitigate the crowding.
At the May 2002 BOC meeting, Fresno County was awarded a $24.1 million grant for the construction of 240 beds in a new 480-bed juvenile justice complex. This new juvenile justice complex is projected for completion in March 2006. It is anticipated that these new beds will alleviate the current crowding problem upon opening.
Mr. Crout stated that in the interim, the county understands it will need to examine all possible measures to alleviate the crowding at the juvenile hall. The most cost-effective option came from the Fresno County Sheriff, who offered to allow the probation department the use of one of the new housing pods located on the top floor of the North Jail Annex. This housing unit pod was designed to house 48 adult inmates in two dormitories, however, the Fresno County Probation Department will house no more than 30 minors at any time in the pod. He stated that this is possible under the Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 207.1(h), which describes the four issues that must be addressed before a co-located juvenile facility can occur in an adult detention facility. The first is, of course, there is no contact between juveniles and incarcerated adults within the facility, and this is occurring in this project; second: the use of shared program space is assured in a policy and procedures manual that minors are prevented from coming into contact with adult inmates when using non-residential areas and that is occurring here; third: the probation department provide all the staff and management for the operation of the juvenile unit, so that they are not being supervised by adult correctional staff; and finally, they comply with all state regulations and that is where the pilot project comes in.
Mr. Crout stated that the North Jail Annex was designed and constructed to comply with Title 24 CCR regulations for adult detention facilities. Therefore, a pilot project, pursuant to Section 13-291 (c) 7, Title 24, CCR, was necessary because the current physical plant minimum standards for juvenile facilities differ from adult facilities.
The Title 24 regulations affected by this pilot project are: 1) Physical Activity and Recreation Areas: the juvenile standards require 9,000 square feet of dedicated indoor/outdoor recreation area. The probation department received approval to use the Fresno County North Jail Annex recreation yard totaling 1,824 square feet. The probation department mitigated the reduction in recreation space through the use of extending the recreation time periods, and by organizing these time periods, to ensure large muscle exercise is provided to all minors through the use of activities developed by a recreation coordinator currently employed by the probation department.
2) Academic Classrooms: Section 460A.1.12 requires dedicated classroom space and that each classroom contain 160 square feet for a teacher’s desk plus 28 square feet for each student. The North Jail Annex does not have dedicated classroom space. However, the lower level of this pod has 2,522 square feet of space. This is adequate space for two classrooms and a dayroom. The probation department is utilizing temporary portable walls to create two classroom spaces, separate from the dayroom space on the lower floor of the pod.
3) Showers: The shower ratio for juveniles is one shower for every six minors, however the Jail was short by two showers. The probation department is using a plan for showers to be incorporated into programming three times a day that assures that minors have daily shower access.
Mr. Crout stated that the juveniles placed in this unit are all post-adjudicated minors that would have otherwise been placed in an overcrowded dormitory setting at the existing juvenile hall. He said it has relieved a great deal of pressure at the facility.
At this time, there have been no incidents reported relating to this pilot project. In the opinion of the BOC staff, this pilot project continues to meet or exceed the intent of the related regulations. Mr. Crout stated that Ms. Ollie Dimery-Ratliff and Mr. Rick Chavez from the Fresno County Probation Department are available to answer any questions.
Ms. Dimery-Ratliff, Director of Fresno County Juvenile Hall, thanked the Board for granting the pilot project in January 2003. She said they did suffer with crowding in 2002 and in prior years. The availability of the jail pod has offered them the opportunity to relieve some of the crowding. It reduces a lot of other incidents such as suicide attempts. She stated that this has been working for them, and she would like to report that no incidents have occurred in regard to recreation and showers. They have maintained their population for the last eight months at the Board-rated capacity as well as the suitability capacity. She said because of a summer lull, they have been able to be under the Board-rated capacity at times. Ms. Dimery-Ratliff stated that they are pleased to be here today and thanked the Board, once again, for approving the pilot project until the county is able to open their new facility in 2006.
Mr. McConnell asked whether being under the Board-rated capacity pertained to both the existing juvenile hall and pilot project or just the project? Ms. Dimery-Ratliff responded just the existing juvenile hall. She stated they have never gone over 30 at the jail pod.
Chairman Presley asked whether there has been contamination between the juvenile and adult population. She stated that they have actually prevented that by means of blocking off their visual from the jail pod. All juvenile and adult activities are separate from each other, and they have different recreational hours.
Chairman Presley asked whether there have been any problems with staff because probation staff is now working with the adult corrections staff. Has that worked out well? Ms. Dimery-Ratliff stated that it has worked out well. The sheriff was rather progressive in working with them, and the jail staff has taken them under their wings and is very helpful. She concluded by saying that they have had no problems with this arrangement.
Mr. Sida stated that this agenda item would provide a statistical report on the activities of the Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) Program for FY 2002-2003, as well as a report on agency compliance for the same reporting period. He said the Board of Corrections is responsible for the implementation of selection and training standards for personnel employed in local corrections agencies. The STC Division has carried out these responsibilities since 1980.
Mr. Sida stated that the first part of this report contains statistical information that the STC Division is responsible for tracking i.e., activities of training programs; number of agencies participating; number of staff participating in each program by category; job applicant testing using the Board selected exam; newly hired staff completing entry training courses by position; training hours by type of training and job classification; certification of course by type; and staff training hours received by category. This report also provides 2001 and 2002 data for comparison. He said despite the difficult economic times, there is still growth in the number of staff that has applied for the annual training planning program, much of the growth due to the expansion of juvenile and jail facilities throughout the state.
Mr. Sida stated that the second part of this report involves agency compliance for FY 2002-2003. The monitoring process consists of taking a 10% random sample, or at least 30 individuals (except in departments with less than 30 staff, then all records are reviewed). During FY 2002-2003, 179 agencies submitted applications to participate in the STC Program. In addition, 15 participating agencies were Community Corrections Facilities (CCF) under contract with the Department of Corrections (CDC) and monitored for compliance with state standards by STC staff.
Mr. Sida stated the areas of concern in this agenda item addresses the 164 agencies that were funded by the Board for their participation in the STC Program during FY 2002-2003. Between June 1 and September 30, 2003, STC staff conducted on-site monitorings of the training records of these 164 agencies. Attachment B in the agenda packet is a summary of the findings of these monitorings. Of the funded agencies, 75 were found in Full Compliance with their Annual Training Plan (ATP) and the STC staff regulations, policies and procedures. In the initial development of the STC Program, the definition for Full Compliance was 100% adherence to all standards, which is a very, very high standard. Over time, it was clearly understood that larger agencies, simply because of staff being injured on duty, innocent clerical errors, and a number of other reasons identified in STC policies would not be able to meet the Full Compliance Standard. So there was another category of compliance developed called Substantial Compliance.
The Board provided staff with five areas (criterion for substantial compliance) to look at and make a recommendation of Substantial Compliance. Last year an additional guideline regarding active military duty call-up was added because of the activities of September 11, 2001, and the activities in Iraq.
Mr. Sida stated that staff monitored 164 participating agencies, of which, 78 agencies had issues regarding compliance with the training standards. Each individual with a compliance issue within these agencies was evaluated on a case-by-case basis as required by Board of Corrections policy. Out of the 78 agencies, 11 did not qualify for the Substantial Compliance recommendation. He stated that in the past, STC was directed to discuss the agencies that were in Substantial Compliance and, over the years, because of staff’s ability to review those issues they decided instead to request information for the noncompliance areas, and so STC is providing that information to the Board today.
Staff is recommending the Board find all departments listed in the agenda packet (Attachment B) in Substantial Compliance and as having met the Board’s criteria for successful participation in the Standards for Training in Corrections Program.
Board Member Mann asked about the agencies that were not in compliance. He said the list shows that very few were out of compliance and it appears that they were all monitored, however Fresno County Sheriff’s Department doesn’t seem to match. He asked if there was a reason why Fresno has so many out of compliance? Mr. Sida stated he had a conversation with the Sheriff of Fresno County prior to the Board meeting, as an operational courtesy, to let him know there was an issue that might be of concern. Sheriff Pierce shared with Mr. Sida that over the past year their county had difficulty with their funding stream. He said they did receive money through the STC Program, but as you know the STC subvention only accounts for, in the best-case scenario, about 30%-50% of the agency’s training obligation. Fresno County Sheriff’s Department had difficulty with additional funding through their Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Sida stated they have asked Fresno County Sheriff’s Department to submit a remediation plan. The BOC has not yet received it, but are anticipating receiving it soon. Board Member Mann asked now that the subvention of money is gone what is next year going to look like for noncompliance? Mr. Sida stated that this is a watershed year. They have already seen a rise in the number of noncompliance agencies, which accounted for a slight increase of what they have had in the past. There have always been agencies that for one reason or another have not been able to meet compliance, but never for more than two consecutive years. Mr. Sida said he hopes he is wrong, but he thinks they will see an increase in the number of agencies that will struggle to meet compliance because of budget cuts. He stated that staff would, of course, be working with the agencies; again, this will be a real mile marker with how agencies cope with the lack of funding. He said interestingly enough, this small amount of subvention funding provided an incredible incentive for agencies to be in compliance.
And for these many years, this subvention funding has really provided the impetus for all the sheriff, probation, and police departments to be there voluntarily. He said it is a shift in public policy that he is disappointed with. It is a fact of life that the money was eliminated, and we will move on to do the best we can.
Board Member Hill stated that the Monterey Police Department chose not to participate in the program. Are they reentering the program? Mr. Sida stated that he would like to compliment the Monterey Police Department. He met with the Chief last year, and because they have had a series of interim chiefs in that agency they had a significant amount of confusion and organizational restructuring that caused them to be out of compliance. He said they sat down with Chief Cudio, who expressed a high commitment to being in compliance and being involved. We thought that it would be best, at our suggestion and mutually agreed upon, that they voluntarily withdraw for a year, in order to regroup and reintegrate back in. Mr. Sida stated he is pleased to report that even without funding the Monterey Police Department worked hard obtaining compliance with BOC standards. They asked BOC staff to look at their training program, and even without the funding they would have met the Substantial Compliance standard activities. They do have a training plan in for this year and are currently participating. Mr. Sida said “hats off” to the Monterey Police Department.
A motion to approve staff’s recommendation to find all departments listed on Attachment B in the agenda packet for Substantial Compliance and as having met the Board’s criteria for successful participation in the Standards for Training in Corrections Program was made by Mr. Curtis Hill and seconded by Mr. John Scott. The motion carried
Mr. Sida stated that there was not a great deal of legislative content this last year because of the concern over the state budget. He said the budget was certainly the high point for everyone legislatively. However, there were items of concern to the Board and staff has provided an update of the changes that have occurred in the legislation of interest since the April 2003 Board meeting. Mr. Sida stated he is available to answer any questions.
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
Robert Presley, Chair/Secretary, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
Edward S. Alameida, Jr., Director, Department of Corrections
Richard Kai, Chief Deputy Director, represented Department of the Youth Authority
Curtis J. Hill, Sheriff, San Benito County Sheriff’s Department
William B. Kolender, Sheriff, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
Terry D. Lee, Chief Probation Officer, Trinity County Probation Department
Gary W. Mann, Deputy Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Bill J. Nettles, Deputy Probation Officer, Los Angeles County Probation Department
John L. Scott, Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Donald R. Sheetz, President, Street Asset Management
Mimi H. Silbert, Ph.D., Executive Director, Delancey Street Foundation (absent)
Thomas L. Soto, Chief Executive Officer, PS Enterprises
Zev Yaroslavsky, County Supervisor, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (absent)
Thomas E. McConnell, Executive Director
Gloria Guerrero, Executive Assistant (absent)
Bill Crout, Deputy Director, FSOD
Michelle Crosby, Secretary
Darryl Datwyler, Field Representative, FSOD
Toni Hafey, Deputy Director, CPPD
Doug Holien, Field Representative, FSOC
Al Lammers, Field Representative, CPPD
Maria Rodriquez, Secretary
Jim Sida, Deputy Director, STC
Karen Stoll, Field Representative, CPPD
Steve Bautista, Contra Costa County Probation Department
Pat Castello, Siskiyou County Probation Department
Rick Chavez, Fresno County Probation Department
John Gweckert, Ventura County Sheriff’s Department
Aki Hakao, Alameda County, GSA
Norm Hurst, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
James Kachik, Alameda County, GSA
Don Krause, Ventura County Probation Department
Bert Liebersbach, Monterey County Sheriff’s Department
Warren Nobles, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
Jim Peterson, Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department
Ollie Dimery-Ratliff, Fresno County Probation Department
George Roemer, Contra Costa County Probation Department
Gary Steele, Sacramento County Probation Department
Nick Tippings, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Mark Tortorich, Contra Costa County Probation Department
Bob Wellott, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department